Labels

Thursday, 27 June 2013

21st century Britain - a dying rose severed from its cultural roots

The
20th Century was defined by economic and class-based divisions between
socialists and capitalists. But, with the main political parties now
increasingly embracing free market capitalism, it is culture rather than
economics which has now become the defining political divide. The 21st Century
is characterised by cultural, social and ethical fault lines between liberals
and conservatives.

The
main vehicles of British culture - parliament, the institutions, judiciary,
universities, media, arts and entertainment- are increasingly now populated and
dominated by a liberal elite which embraces an atheist worldview and the ethics
of secular humanism. People who were in their teens and twenties in the 1960s
are now running the country, 150 years after the start of decline of British
Christendom in 1860.

Social
conservative values I see as including sexual purity, marital faithfulness,
family and community loyalty, upholding the sanctity of life, respect for king
and country, accountability, responsibility, integrity, stewardship, simplicity,
sacrificial service, self-control, a strong work ethic and both charitable
provision and legal protection for the most vulnerable.

In
Britain these social conservative values are essentially Christian values –
which have their roots in the Bible and were revived by the 16th century
reformation, by the 17th century puritanism that drove the
Pilgrim fathers and the non-conformist movement, and by the 18th century
evangelical revival under Wesley and Whitefield (and parallel Great
Awakening in America) which led both to the 19th century social
reform catalysed by the likes of Wilberforce and the Clapham sect and also to
the 19th missionary movement, beginning with Carey in 1793,
which profoundly shaped the Christian culture of the British Empire.

Christian
social conservative values are a strange mixture of right and left wing
political concerns – combining traditionally left wing concerns for the poor,
disabled people, ethnic minorities and concerns about developing world trade,
aid and debt with a more traditionally right wing opposition to abortion,
euthanasia, divorce, sexual immorality and substance abuse.

David
Cameron fails to understand this because he understands Christianity primarily
in terms of its influence on Britain’s architecture, language, constitutional
monarchy and parliamentary democracy but without really grasping Christianity’s
fundamental world view and ethics except in very vague terms.

His recent speech on the 400th anniversary
of the KJV illustrates this well – where he talked about ‘responsibility, hard
work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love…pride in working for
the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to
our families and our communities…’ but tellingly left out any reference to the
sanctity of life, sexual purity, respect for conscience or most importantly any
reference to the mission of Christ or his incarnation, crucifixion,
resurrection, ascension or return in judgement – concepts which by contrast the Queen does actually seem to understand.

Iain
Duncan Smith in his 2006 analysis of ‘Breakdown Britain’ I believe attributed
accurately the decline to the ‘five pathways to poverty’: family breakdown,
educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness, and addiction which he
calculated costs us £102 billion per annum. He listed 191 policies
aimed at reversing the breakdown, with which I have much sympathy, but I see
the underlying solutions as predominantly spiritual rather than political.

This
is because at a deeper level I see the breakdown of Britain and its five
'drivers' as symptoms of a more general spiritual malaise – a loss of Christian
faith and values – of Christian belief and behaviour. What is missing is the
sense of accountability, responsibility, human dignity and empathy that has its
roots in a Christian world view.

The
problem with Britain is that like a dying rose it has been severed from the
very roots which were responsible for its, now fading, bloom.

44 comments:

"Sexual purity, marital faithfulness, family and community loyalty, upholding the sanctity of life, respect for king and country, accountability, responsibility, integrity, stewardship, simplicity, sacrificial service, self-control, a strong work ethic and both charitable provision and legal protection for the most vulnerable."

Sexual purity is at least partially responsible for higher divorce rates among Christians. Sex is a crucial part of most relationships.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Loyalty is all well and good, unless one is being loyal to a child abusing tyrant. The ten commandments are little more than an appeal to authority and a license to commit child abuse.

Respecting the sanctity of life comes at the cost of intellectual and moral honesty (to say nothing about women's rights) at the beginning of life, and at the cost of free will (you know, that gift from god you Christians are always extolling) at the end of life.

And if gays end up committing suicide in droves, well, you probably couldn't care less.

I agree with your stance on accountability. Now prove it by turning yourself in for keeping torture legal for decades.

The liberal values you hate so much are the freedoms you so blithely enjoy every time you drink a cup of coffee or glass of wine. Drug legalisation is the next step in social progress.

Winston, real true love involves having the courage to point out to those in error (including your good self dear brother) that they are wrong. This is so they don't end up facing the day of judgement without having been warned and having a chance to repent.

It's actually in the Old Testament.

'Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.'

That OT verse only applies to in-group members. Hardly a decent example of charity.

And if you're going to use bronze age biblical nonsense to determine who is in error and who isn't, you're beyond hope. Empiricism and compassion are far more valuable for societal progress (which is why you are losing ground on every front).

Winston, you claim that empiricism and compassion lead to progress, but progress to what? The implication is that there is some ideal to which society is progressing. Presumably you don't consider that to have come from God, so where did it come from? And what makes your chosen ideal better than, say, the societal ideals of Stalin's USSR? The problem with humanistic morals is that they also, ultimately, appeal to some authority (in their case, and undefined one); some position that they deem to be axiomatic. This is true for the Utilitarians of the 19th century and for Sam Harris in the 21st

Winston I really fail to see how "Love you neighbour as yourself" is an open invitation to commit child abuse. if you look at the whole bible and not simply cherry pick a few verses. It instructs parents to love and protect their children, for husbands to love and cherish their wives etc. Christianity is not about kissing your brain goodbye along with any kind of common sense.

Any husband or wife who beats their spouse and sexually abuses their children has firstly broken the vows of marriage to love honour and respect and has secondly broken the law of the land, which we instructed to keep and therefore deserves punishment according to that. The children also need protection from the abuse.

You talk about free choice, but what about the choice of the unborn child not to die? should another's life be taken for "the greater good?" Yes there are circumstances where a termination is the only sensible option, for example in a case of ectopic pregnancy, where the continuation of the pregnancy would likely cause the death of the mother and the child but where the child is disabled or the pregnancy is inconvenient, should that child really not have a choice. And what about the choice of the father? What if he wants to raise the child even if the mother does not. Should his free choice be ignored. The benefits of sexual purity until marriage would be a huge reduction in the number unplanned pregnancies.

It's funny that you talk about drug legalisation in the same week as some government ministers and health officials are calling for a ban on the availability of sweets and fizzy drinks in hospitals, due to the rising problem of obesity. Perhaps some may think it would be better if we exchanged Big Macs for heroin. t least this would tackle the obesity issue.

The problem with 'free will' in a society that generally cares more about money than people is, when does 'free will' become 'forced will'? If euthanasia does become legal, how long will it be before the boundaries become blurred and the rigid rules slackened? Maybe in 40 years time when I am in my 80's, if I become unwell and need costly care, will I be 'encouraged to do the decent thing for the greater good' and accept a lethal injection?

I really don't think this is too far fetched looking at the way the laws around abortion have changed in the last 40 years.

Morality is based on the twin objective facts that suffering and happiness exist. You believe that there will be no suffering in heaven, I take it? Why then is that not a laudable goal to work towards here on Earth?

Last time I checked the bible, there were no laws against spousal abuse. In fact, non-virgin wives were to be stoned.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.

If you want abortion to vanish, I suggest you advocate for better comprehensive sex education funding and artificial wombs. Once the risk of pregnancies to women is eliminated, so will most elective abortions.

Also, why aren't you also advocating mandatory blood and organ donations? A single blood donation can save up to three lives, you know.

Your reference to regulating children's health is irrelevant. When we talk about drugs, we're talking about informed, consenting adults.

When will free will be "forced will"? Well, we have enforced suffering now, under the auspices of the minority such as yourself and the CNK alliance.

I will be the first to speak out against anyone who tries to encourage or coerce anyone to choose death against their will. In the same way, I oppose anyone who tries to force people to suffer against their will.

Emma Swain - I was referring to the ten commandments. Demanding respect for one's parents, regardless of their behaviour towards their children, is prima facie absurd. Some parents simply don't deserve respect.

"Morality is based on the twin objective facts that suffering and happiness exist" is exactly what I was talking about - an appeal to aome axiomatic authority. Based on your claim why can I not have a morality that says the good is what maximises my happiness? (or my family's, or my nation's, or my race's). You refusal to engage with the subject demonstrates my point

It's more objective than the "authority" of a deity or government. Might does not make right. If your god decided to send everyone to hell for the fun of it, would that make his decision and act good? And just so you know, you cannot evade the Euthyphro dilemma by appealing to god's "nature."

Happiness and suffering are objectively desirable and undesirable, by definition. If you can't accept that foundation, we can't get anywhere in a moral debate.

Au contraire, as a Christian I do very much accept that we have a duty to alleviate suffering. But you have done it again. You say "Might does not make right". You appeal to something you call "right", but you have no objective means of saying what that is, so you are appealing to some unstated authority which you cannot identify. IF we live in an entirely material universe, suffering has no more meaning than any other natural phenomenon. All suffering and all happiness (using your logic) must simply be random, meaningless occurrences in a random, meaningless universe. So the question is, why do YOU look for meaning ("progress", "right") in this particular aspect of the universe when you presumably don't expect to find it in (say) the formation of stars?

You accept that you have a duty to alleviate suffering? Good for you. It's a pity "Mother" Teresa and Bill Donovan of the American Catholic League disagree. Penn and Teller did a whole episode of "Holier than Thou" hypocrisy.

And before you accuse the Catholics of not being true Christians, you should remember that they did found the first large-scale Christian organisation, after all.

My authority is the universal definition of suffering and happiness. Do you not believe there will be no suffering in heaven? Why then should we not work towards a world free from suffering and misery in the here and now?

Gaining happiness at the cost of the well-being of others would be immoral and selfish by definition. You don't know what morality means. If you did, you wouldn't attack strawmen and work against your own interests. Only religion can do that.

Well that rambling reply shows that you do indeed have no rational basis for your position. Having a universal definition of suffering and happiness is not morality. Morality would be the imperative to relieve suffering or promote happiness - you should try to get your head round the distinction. I know very well that I should not seek to gain happiness at the expense of others. I also know why I believe that. Your morality, however, is arbitrary - you seem to believe that morality is what seems good to you - not everyone would agree with you, especially when it comes to issues like abortion. Is it OK for someone to end the life of a baby to promote their convenience?

Aborting a foetus is a far lesser evil than forcing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will. Then again, as a Christian, I can't really expect you to view women as anything other than human incubators.

You still have not addressed my argument about mandatory blood and kidney donations to save lives.

You haven't answered any of my points. You haven't answered my question about why you find meaning in only one part of universe (what you call morality) which you consider to be otherwise meaningless. You haven't told me what makes your so called morality anything other than subjective. You also continually seek to attribute views to me which I don't hold, then think you have vindicated yourself by attacking them. For the record, I consider all human beings, women, men, children and babies to be intrinsically valuable. I certainly don't consider that Catholics are not Christians, I value them as I do all my fellow Christians. Answer the points I raise above, and I will happily give you my views on blood and kidney donation

I find meaning in many things, not simply the study of morality and behaving in a moral manner.

I honestly do not know how you could construe such a conclusion from my comments here.

I have explained why my morality is objective - because it is based on the FACTS of suffering and happiness. And here`s something that should help you understand it better -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective?s=t

1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc

The distinctions you draw between liberal 'elite' values and conservative ones are very peculiar. I had no idea that I was so special and elitist for cohabiting with my partner. Also many of the values you see as socially conservative are perfectly attributable to members of what you call the liberal 'elite'. It is possible to feel and exhibit loyalty to your family and community whilst cohabiting and supporting same sex marriage.

And 'accountability, responsibility, integrity'- I don't understand how you can see these concepts as the preserve of social conservatism.

Most people espouse a mixture of conservative and liberal values and many liberals will value accountability,responsibility and integrity but will define these according to their world view and ethics.

Cohabitation and all other models that fall short of marriage are not based on Christian principles.

I agree with Winston that might does not make it right. Indeed, what makes things right is objective moral law. This can only exist if God exists. It is time to kneel. Weak and powerful alike must bow before the higher law. It is not for the powerful to decide what is right but for all to recognise and embrace what is right.

How do you know your god is moral? How do you know his "nature" is moral?

If he changed his mind on a whim (which he does quite often according to the bible) and sends everyone to hell, does that make his decision moral? Why or why not?

Regret is surprisingly common among Yahweh's emotions.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Deuteronomy 32:36 For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants.

1 Samuel 15:11, 35 It repenteth me [God] that I have set up Saul to be king. (v.11)

The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (v.35)

2 Samuel 24:16 The Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough: stay now thine hand.

1 Chronicles 21:15 The Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand.

Isaiah 38:1-5 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah ... said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live. ... Thus saith the LORD ... I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

Jeremiah 15:6 I [God] am weary of repenting.

Jeremaih 18:8 I [God] will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jeremaih 26:3, 13, 19 That I [God]may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them. (v.3)

The Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you. (v.13)

The Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them. (v.19)

Jeremaih 42:10 For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you.

Amos 7:3, 6 The Lord repented for this.

Jonah 3:10 God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them.

God is not simply another component in the universe. He is not simply the biggest thing around. He is not the supreme being but he is being itself. He is love itself, truth itself, goodness itself. He is not a competitor. It is in his reality that we find our true flourishing. When human ideas and emotions are used to talk about God, we need to remember that they are completely inadequate. I know you do not accept any of this, which is precisely why you read the bible in a way that would not even occur to me. I suggest you search out some of Fr Robert Barron's You Tube clips on how we read the Bible. In the meantime we are simply talking at cross purposes.

Child rape is evil. Justice exists because God exists. In the end the oppressors and the oppressed will not just sit down at the heavenly banquet as if nothing had ever happened. There will be a real judgement for each and every one. Worldly power, wealth and influence will not help anyone. There is indeed a radical equality. If you mean why does God allow people to do bad things without actually stopping them, it is precisley because of our free negation of God. He has made us free. He has not made us robots. Evil is an abuse of that freedom. Our true flourishing and freedom are found in God.

Of course child rape is evil. It is evil because it causes suffering (so do vaccines, but they are a necessary evil that we fallible, flawed humans must use to protect ourselves from diseases).

But you cannot reach that conclusion from the bible. Here are just a few verses:

Genesis - Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8

Isaiah 13:15-18 - If God can find you, he will "thrust you through," smash your children "to pieces" before your eyes, and rape your wife. He will have no mercy, but will even kill your little children.

Judges 20:48 - The Israelites finish their massacre of the Benjamites by killing all the men, animals, and everything they could find in every Benjamite city. Then they burned the cities to the ground. (In this way God helped the Israelites make everything better after the rape and dismemberment of the concubine.)

Still think he's omnibenevolent?

The rest of your post is nothing more than a blatantly obviously appeal to consequences, with no bearing on reality or truth.

I am glad to see that both Winston and Frangelico agree with Catholic tradition:"The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers.." Pope Benedict 16th. In other words the Bible is not neeeded to tell us waht is right and wrong in the way Winston thinks. It has a much richer purpose than even that.

But Winston's way of reading the Bible seems to be deliberatley antagonistic. It is simply not the way it has ever been read by Jews and Christians.

My reading of the bible is guided by my compassion for sentient beings and my desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.

Until and unless you can prove the existence of heaven, you have no basis for your claims. The god of the bible is clearly an egotistical racist who only cared about the Jews in the OT and about those willing to kowtow down to him in the NT.

Animals do not have any morality. They simply follow their instincts. God is not a dictator because he does not have ti be. He simply invites us to love and flourish in him. You don't have to. But outside of God you won't find much because God is.

Wanna talk about "Christian values?" When was the last time you sold all of your unnecessary wealth and donated it to the poor? (Matthew 19:21)

The fact is, you haven't. And let's be frank, you won't. A major reason why these so-called Christian values are fading from society is because even the Christians themselves refuse to live by them. You're all hypocrites. You espouse one set of virtues as ideal but then live entirely by another. Then when called out on it, you make lame excuses about how "well, Jesus didn't REALLY mean for us to sell our stuff..."

So fine. Keep doing what you're doing. Christianity is fading, and you're directly contributing to that decline.

Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited. Visit the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Epic Videos, Prank Videos, Fail Videos and Much More Fun and Entertainmentlolsgag.com

Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited. Visit the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Epic Videos, Prank Videos, Fail Videos and Much More Fun and Entertainmentlolsgag.com

Earn Money Launch a New Earning System on Facebook, the best Social Media Website where you can share some fun and earn with us, Share some pictures on Facebook and earn on every pictures you post or share. Unlimited Facebook Wall Sharing and Unlimited Earning.Earn with Making Facebook Ids, Make Unlimited Facebook Ids and Get 10$ on Every FB Id. jobzcorner.com

Contact the author

Search this Blog

Kiwi, Christian and Medical

This blog deals mainly with matters at the interface of Christianity and Medicine. But I do also diverge into other subjects - especially New Zealand, rugby, economics, developing world, politics and topics of general Christian and/or medical interest. The opinions expressed here are mine and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or anyone else associated with me.

About Me

I am CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. The opinions expressed here however are mine, and may not necessarily reflect the views of CMF or anyone else associated with me.